alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHBIT  32.1
------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002

In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Bluetorch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-qsb  for  the  period  ending  September  30,  2003,  as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), David
Lasell,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

(2)  The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result  of operations of the Company.



/s/  DAVID  LASELL
-----------------------------
David  Lasell
Chief  Financial  Officer





                                November 19, 2003
# EUR-Lex - 12004V251 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V251

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 9 — Research and Technological Development, and Space - Article III-251 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0110 - 0110 *

Article III-251

1. European laws shall establish a multiannual framework programme, setting out all the activities financed by the Union. Such laws shall be adopted after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee.

The framework programme shall:

(a) establish the scientific and technological objectives to be achieved by the activities provided for in Article III-249 and lay down the relevant priorities;

(b) indicate the broad lines of such activities;

(c) lay down the maximum overall amount and the detailed rules for the Union's financial participation in the framework programme and the respective shares in each of the activities provided for.

2. The multiannual framework programme shall be adapted or supplemented as the situation changes.

3. A European law of the Council shall establish specific programmes to implement the multiannual framework programme within each activity. Each specific programme shall define the detailed rules for implementing it, fix its duration and provide for the means deemed necessary. The sum of the amounts deemed necessary, fixed in the specific programmes, shall not exceed the overall maximum amount fixed for the framework programme and each activity. Such a law shall be adopted after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

4. As a complement to the activities planned in the multiannual framework programme, European laws shall establish the measures necessary for the implementation of the European research area. Such laws shall be adopted after consulting the Economic and Social Committee.

--------------------------------------------------
#### Taylor v. Davis *et al., Plaintiffs in Error.*

Deed : vbaud. A deed fraudulently obtained by the intended grantee will be void for want of delivery, and will convey no title even to an innocent purchaser.

' *Error to Nodaway Circuit Court.*— Hon. H. S-. Kelley, Judge.

Aeeirmed.

Plaintiff having contracted for the sale of his land to defendant, Davis, sent a deed properly executed and acknowledged to one Johnson with instructions to deliver the same to Davis, upon the execution by Davis of notes for the purchase money, with a deed of trust upon the land to secure the notes. Before receiving plaintiffs deed Davis sold the land to Shrigley. The next day he went to Johnson’s house and asked to be allowed to have the deed in order to examine the record, but Johnson refused. On the following day Johnson left home, having first instructed his wife, if Davis came, not to let him have the deed, but tó make him stay till he, Johnson, returned. Davis came in Johnson’s absence, executed the deed of trust and notes according to agreement, left them for Johnson, and in spite of Mrs. Johnson’s objections, carried off the deed from plaintiff. He then, in company with Shrigley, drove rapidly to the county seat, a distance of about twenty miles, and in the afternoon of the same day filed for record both the deed from plaintiff to himself and the deed from himself to Shrigley. This was on Saturday. On the following Monday, Shrigley executed a note and deed of trust upon the land to secure the note, which he and Davis together, on the same day, presented to the Nodaway Valley Bank for sale. The cashier of the bank being acquainted with plaintiff’s signature, examined his deed on file at the recorder’s office and satisfied himself that the signature was genuine. He also examined the county records, and it appearing that the *292title was vested in Shrigley, he bought the note. The deed from plaintiff contained au acknowledgment of the receipt of the purchase money. The deed of trust given by Davis to plaintiff, did not reach the county seat for record until the day after the purchase by the bank. Neither the cashier, nor any other officer of the bank, at the time of the purchase, knew of its existence, or of the manner in which Davis had obtained possession of the deed from plaintiff; nor did a"ny of them suspect any fraud. Plaintiff brought this action against Davis, Shrigley and the bank to have all the conveyances canceled as a cloud upon his title. There was a decree in his favor, and the bank sued out a writ of error.

*Botsford & Williams*for plaintiffs in error.

*Johnston & Jackson*for defendant in error.

Sherwood, C. J.

This case is too plain for any extended discussion, or the lengthy review of the authorities. There was no delivery of the deed, that instrument having been fraudulently obtained by Davis. Consequently, no title passed to Davis or those claiming under him. Thei’efore, judgment affirmed.

All concur.
I 

4 

fy 

1776 K STREI 

WASHINCTDN, 

PHONE 202.719.7000 

FAX 202.719.7049 

SECTION • |C0hMi3£j0j=j 

y^20 Pin--20 

,06(r- 0 

cou 

7925 JONES BRANCH ORIVE 

MCLEAN, VA 22102 

PHONE 703.905.2800 

FAX 703.905.2820 

www.wUeyrein.com 

'RECEiVrn 

ZQI2JUN20 PH 3:52 

FEC MAIL CENTER Jan WItold Baran 

202.719.7330 

jbaran@wlleyreln.com 

BY HAND 

Mr. Jeffs. Jordan 

Supervisory Attorney 

Complaints Examination & Legal Administration • 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Re: MUR6589 

Dear Mr. Jordan: 

This office represents the American Action Network ("AAN"). Enclosed please 

find an executed Designation of Counsel form from our client. 

On June 15,2012, the AAN received your letter and accompanying complaint 

indicating that the AAN may have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended. Due to the passage of almost two years since the most recent 

activities described in the complaint, my office will need more than the 15-day 

allotted time to confer with our client, investigate the allegations in the complaint, 

and to compile an appropriate response. Therefore, I respectfully request a 20 day 

extension until July 20,2012, to file a response on behalf of AAN. 

Your favorable consideration of this request will be appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Jfii Witold Baran 

cc: Kim Collins 

Enclosme 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

990 E Slre^t. NW 

Washington. DC 20463 

STATEMENT OF DESlGNrtHON OF pQWNSEL 

gloassjusg pfffff^rtTitofeqc 

MUR# 6589 

NAME OF COUNSEL: Jo" Ml told Bar/in & Caleb P. Fttrna 

FIRM. Wiley Rain LLP 

ADORESS; 1776 K I'Streac. KW 

yaahlngcoft, PU 2QOOE 

TELEPKONE. OFFtCE/ 2P2 \ Tl9-7000 

FAXCmJ-ZlSsm 

The above-nampd indiyidMAl < 

antiTQirlsoid to re.6.^ke any npUfini^e 

tp net MSh-my bnh^lftiinTQHQ iito'CemW 

LJOAL^ 

Oatp ^^pandewi^dniv^jgrt^i'e 

fiAMeOReSPONPENT! Amertcap Action lle.tyork 

SQs tHs Ooinnitibsipn si\d 

Ftealident 

MAILING ADDRESS;. 

<Rlea6e Print) 

TELEPHONE. HOME (. JBUSINESSt L 

Information Is bblng souflhl .as iKirt of an inveallsatton belnfl coflduoteP by the Fetforal DsoUon CcmrnlBSloii end the 

oortMenUailty prwrtsfons of 20.8.0. §437fi(p){12)(A) appjy. TWartb^flpWhlbtteinbWnfltbWIpahylnvM 

Oondyotod l>y Uio FOderal Sootlpn Corntnldaibn %vlthc>ul the oiipreee wrlttbh oonsont of dw poraon under 

lnvoetl£patlon 

RpV.ZOOfi
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4731

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel ISABELLE.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 12, 1994

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

ISABELLE.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en8 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the
2

•HR 4731 IH

1 vessel ISABELLE (United States official number

2 600655).

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 183 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55273-55274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7910]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Bureau of Engraving & Printing


Senior Executive Service; Combined Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Bureau of Engraving & Printing, Treasury Department.

ACTION: Notice of Members of Combined Performance Review Board (PRB).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the 
appointment of the members of the Combined Performance Review Board 
(PRB) for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Financial 
Management Service, the Bureau of the Public Dept, and the United 
States Mint. The Board reviews the performance appraisals of career 
senior executives below the level of bureau head and principal deputy 
in the bureaus, except for executives below the Assistant Commissioner 
level in the Financial Management Service. The Board makes 
recommendations regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, 
bonuses, pay adjustments and other appropriate personnel actions.

Composition of Combined PRB

    The Board shall consist of at least three voting members. In the 
case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half of the 
members shall consist of career appointees. The names and titles of the 
Combined PRB members are as follows:

Primary Members

Pamela J. Gardiner, Associate Director (Management), BEP.
Marty Griener, Associate Director/Chief Financial Officer, United 
States Mint.
John R. Swales, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Security Operations, 
BPD.
J. Martin Mills, Assistant Commissioner, Debt Management Service, FMS.

Alternate Members

Leonard Olijar, Associate Director, (Chief Financial Officer), BEP.
Debra Tomchek, Senior Advisor, Office of Workforce Solutions, United 
States Mint.
Glenn E. Ball, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Management Services, 
BPD.
Gary Grippo, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance, FMS.

[[Page 55274]]


DATES: Membership is effective on 09-30-2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angie McNeal, Chief, Office of Human 
Resources, Bureau of Engraving & Printing, 14th & C Streets, SW., 
Washington, DC 20228; Telephone Number: (202) 874-2781.

Larry Felix,
Director, Bureau of Engraving & Printing.
[FR Doc. 06-7910 Filed 9-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4840-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2073

ALICE FAYE HOLDER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TOWN OF ZEBULON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:14-cv-00018-F)

Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: February 27, 2015

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alice Faye Holder, Appellant Pro Se. Allison Cohan, Amy Ruth 

Holbrook, BROWN LAW, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alice Faye Holder appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to 

state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Holder v. Town of Zebulon, No. 

5:14-cv-00018-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2014). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
The COPS Office and the COPS Hiring Program—By the Numbers

The FY 2015 appropriations act provided $113,906,528 for the COPS Hiring Program (CHP). Of 

this total, $113,743,485 was ultimately awarded to 209 agencies across the country. The funds will be 

used to do the following: 

• Hire new officers, including filling existing officer vacancies that are no longer funded in an 

agency’s budget. 

• Rehire officers laid off by any jurisdiction as a result of state, local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) budget reductions unrelated to the receipt of grant funding. 

• Rehire officers scheduled to be laid off (at the time of application) from the applicant’s 

department on a specific future date as a result of state, local, or BIA budget reductions 

unrelated to the receipt of grant funding. 

CHP awardees may receive funding in one or more of the above-referenced hiring categories.

Some Quick Facts about the COPS Hiring Program

Total amount of awards

(This amount will pay for salaries and benefits for three years.) $113,743,485

Number of law enforcement agencies receiving grants 209

Total number of law enforcement officers hired 915

New law enforcement officers hired 887

Number of rehired law enforcement officers (already laid off) 11

Number of rehired law enforcement officers (future scheduled layoffs) 17

For all applicants:

Average yearly salary and benefits for law enforcement officers in jurisdictions

over 150,000 $81,403

Average yearly salary and benefits for law enforcement officers in jurisdictions

equal to or less than 150,000 $69,790

Number of agencies that applied 1,103

Number of positions requested 3,083

Total amount requested (including waiver requests) $376,682,744

Number of officers that would have been requested had there been no cap 6,493

Total amount that would have been requested had there been no cap or local match $1,475,313,155
EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                         STATE OR
                                       COUNTRY OF
              NAME                    INCORPORATION          TRADE NAME
------------------------------------  ------------  --------------------------
1. Tanknology Environmental
     Services, Inc. ................    Delaware    TES, Inc.
2. Tanknology/Engineered
     Systems, Inc. .................    Delaware    Engineered Systems, Inc.
3. Tanknology Worldwide, Inc. ......    Delaware    TW, Inc.
4. Tanknology of Illinois, Inc. ....    Delaware    Tanknology of Illinois, Inc.
5. Energy Recovery Resources, Inc. .    Delaware    James Waste Oil Service
Case 16-24987 Doc 4 Filed 08/03/16 Entered 08/03/16 15:56:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-24987 Doc 4 Filed 08/03/16 Entered 08/03/16 15:56:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,222,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,389,179
<PP&E>                                          97,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,466,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,371,481
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        900
<COMMON>                                           760
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,907,130)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,466,011
<SALES>                                        139,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,181
<CGS>                                           69,436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,499,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,409,667)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,409,667)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,409,667)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)


</TABLE>
Strafford,

No. 4558.

#### Harry Costoras *v.*Harold B. Noel.

Argued March 5, 1957.

Decided June 20, 1957.

*McCabe & Fisher*and *Harold D. Moran (Mr. Moran*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Burns, Calderwood, Bryant & Hinchey (Mr. Hinchey*orally), for the defendant.

Lampron, J.

At common law there was no action for wrongful death nor did tort actions for personal injuries survive. *Burke*v. *Burnham,*97 N. H. 203; *Dubois*v. *Pouliot,*97 N. H. 78; *Hinman*v. *Director,*79 N. H. 518. Therefore any right of action which *72survived this injured plaintiff’s death did so solely by virtue of RSA ch. 556 and its predecessor statutes and only to the extent specified by them. *Costoras*v. *Noel,*100 N. H. 81, 82. The statute which creates the right also limits its existence. *Kostoras*v. *Hines,*80 N. H. 500.

When there is an action pending at the death of the person injured this action is made to survive by RSA 556:9, but no other action can be instituted after his death by the personal representative. *Ham*v. *Interstate Bridge Authority,*92 N. H. 268, 275; *Burke*v. *Burnham, supra,*205. The only action the executor is admitted to prosecute is the pending action. *Piper v. Railroad,*75 N. H. 435, 442, 443. Therefore any amendment offered by the executor to become party plaintiff and to allege the wrongful death of decedent must necessarily be an amendment of the action pending at the death of the injured party. *Ham*v. *Interstate Bridge Authority, supra.*However that action survives only in accord with the limitations imposed on it by the statute which creates it. *Kostoras*v. *Hines, supra.*It has become abated and forever barred by the failure of the executor to appear and assume its prosecution before the end of the second term after the decease of the injured party. It is therefore incapable of amendment. The plaintiff’s motion should be denied and the defendant’s granted.

*Judgment for the defendant.*

Wheeler, J., took no part in the decision; the others concurred.
§ 80.32 What is the certification period? A certification period must: ( a ) Be 12 consecutive months;
( b ) Correspond to the State's fiscal year or license year;
( c ) Be consistent from year to year unless the Director approves a change; and
( d ) End at least 1 year and no more than 2 years before the beginning of the Federal fiscal year in which the apportioned funds first become available for expenditure.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Multi-Tech International Corp., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), on
the date hereof, I, Dr. David F. Hostelley, President and Principal Financial
Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Multi-Tech International Corp. and will be retained by Multi-Tech
International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

                                 /s/ Dr. David F. Hostelley
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                     Dr. David F. Hostelley
                                     President

August 2, 2004
Opinion filed April 2 , 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ___

No. 11

- 15

- 00 068

- C R

__________

IN RE RODNEY EARL MILLER

Original Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Rodney Earl Miller, has filed a pro se petition i n this court that

relates to a n application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court pursuant to

T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014 ). In the petition filed in

this court , Relator requests that this court require the trial court to file facts and

conclusions of law and to transmit his Article 11.07 application , along with the

facts and conclusions of law, to this court

. 1 We dismiss Relator ’ s petition for want

of jurisdicti on

. According to his petition, Relator has already filed an Article 11.07

application in the trial court

. Because Relator has an Article 11.07 application

1 We note that Relator failed to attach any documentation to his petition in this court and, thus, failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.2 pending, w e have no jurisdiction to grant the relief that he requests in the petition

filed in our court

. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth Dist

. , 392

S.W.3d 115, 117

– 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013 ) (indicating that the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction w hen an Article 11.07 application is

pending)

. We have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law

matters pertaining to proceedings under Article 11.07. In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d

715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

Relator’s petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

April 2 , 2015

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.